This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Estoya has failed to allege and prove any improper motive on AAA's part for AAA to falsely accuse Estoya of rape. Since there was no showing of any improper motive on the part of the victim to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[20] We have in many cases held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.[21] We simply cannot believe that a 14-year old girl would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, unless she was, in fact, raped.[22] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It must be observed though that BBB was at a tender age when she was raped in 2001. Moreover, these inconsistencies, which the RTC and the Court of Appeals did not consider material, were elicited while BBB was testifying in open court. Our observations in People v. Perez[33] on the appreciation of alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of rape victims who happen to be minors are instructive, thus: We note that these alleged inconsistencies refer, at best, only to trivial, minor, and insignificant details. They bear no materiality to the commission of the crime of rape of which accused-appellant was convicted.[[34]] As pointed out by the Solicitor General in the Appellee's Brief, the seeming inconsistencies were brought about by confusion and merely represent minor lapses during the rape victim's direct examination and cannot possibly affect her credibility. Minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court, in the presence of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[[35]] "Moreover, the inconsistency may be attributed to the well-known fact that a courtroom atmosphere can affect the accuracy of testimony and the manner in which a witness answers questions."[[36]][37] Further, the public prosecutor offered a convincing explanation on why BBB was confused on some points of her two testimonies. Particularly in the Memorandum for the People[38] filed with the RTC, the public prosecutor creditably explained the inconsistencies, thus: [BBB]'s testimony on July 3, 2002 might be contradictory to her first testimony on June 6, 2001, with respect to the last rape on January 15, 2000, as regards the place of commission house of her parents or house of accused; and the length of time he stayed on her top - 3 minutes or half-minute. But she remained consistent in her declaration that on January 15, 2000, her uncle inserted his penis into her vagina, and he was moving while on her top then she felt something came out from him. He was able to rape her because he threatened her with a knife or bladed weapon. Further, the first she took the witness stand on June 6, 2001, she was made to recall the last rape, the first rape and many acts of sexual abuses [sic] against her. She was even confused about her age when she was first raped by her uncle. After she testified on November 14, 2001, for the separate charges of rapes in 1997, 1998 and 1999, she was able to recall more clearly the last rape on January 15, 2000, which happened in her own house. These noted discrepancies as to the exact place of commission - accused's house or victim's house - is not an essential element of the crime of rape and both houses are situated in Brgy. Villa Padua Ilaya, Gumaca, Quezon, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. x x x [39] In addition, we share the lower court's disbelief of appellant's proffered defenses of denial and alibi. These two defenses are inherently the weakest as they are negative defenses. Mere denials of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the defendant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he must likewise demonstrate that it is physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.[40] | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| chastity, the Court has laid down the rule that if the crime of rape is committed and effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by law, the indemnity for the victim shall be increased to the amount of P75,000.00. Since this case is not qualified, the indemnity should properly be P50,000.00. As to the award of moral damages, this Court has now been consistently awarding the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim in a rape case. This amount is automatically granted without need of further proof, other than the commission of the crime. It is assumed that the offended party has suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award of such damages.[20] The trial court's award of exemplary damages, however, should be deleted. Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.[18] Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault, especially a minor.[19] No woman, especially one so young, would concoct a tale of defloration; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo the expense, | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Appellant did not raise the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence as an issue. This Court, however, looked into it motu proprio, consistent with the principle that an appeal in a criminal action opens the whole case. Any review of a rape case begins with the settled reality that accusing a person of this crime can be done with facility.[14] While it may not be easy for the complainant to prove its commission, it is even more difficult for the accused, although innocent, to disprove his guilt. In view of the intrinsic nature of this crime where only two persons are normally involved, the testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with great caution. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, credibility becomes the single most important issue.[15] Also, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits; it cannot draw strength from the weakness of that for the defense.[16] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Mindful of the doctrine that "when a woman more so if she is a minor says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed,"[16] we have painstakingly examined the testimony of private complainant but the glaring improbabilities thereof constrained us to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused-appellant. Julie Ann never objected when Edward brought her to Sasa, Davao City. Even at the point where she allegedly sensed danger, she did not seize the opportunity to escape. It appears that the door of the house where she was brought was tied with a rope. When Edward untied the rope, Julie Ann could have scampered away to safety. But she did not. She waited for Edward to open the door and allowed him to hold her hand as he led her inside the house. She did not even say that Edward was holding her hand tightly or was preventing her from extricating herself. Then, inside the house, Julie Ann obediently entered the room and meekly sat at the corner thereof, allowing Edward to close the door behind her. Even before Julie Ann entered the house, she testified that she was afraid. But it defies comprehension why she still entered the room and sat at the corner thereof. While it is true that a rape victim is not expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that she did not even make an outcry or use her hands which were then free to ward off the lustful advances of Edward. She could have shouted for help considering that her cries could be easily heard by the neighbors as the houses in the said squatter's area were closely built. Faced with the passivity and submissiveness of Julie Ann from the time she entered the house, up to the time Edward removed her clothes and all throughout the time that he was allegedly violating her, nothing could be drawn but consent and voluntariness of private complainant to the sexual advances of accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Time and time again, we have ruled that denial like alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Furthermore, it cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of appellant by the offended party and other witnesses. "Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the appellants' defense of denial and alibi. In this case, there was no showing of any improper motive on the part of the witnesses to testify falsely against the three accused or to falsely implicate them in the commission of the crime. Hence, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law."[14] | |||||
|
2002-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The issue of lack of motive on the part of accused-appellant to kill the victim has no bearing in the instant case. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful.[25] In the present case, accused-appellant was positively identified by the wife of the victim. Since it was not shown that Carmen Verceles was impelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against him, the presumption is that, she was not so moved and that her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[26] | |||||
|
2001-11-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As for damages, we modify the P150,000 award imposed by the trial court. The current policy of this Court is to award civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape upon an indubitable showing of its commission.[26] We have likewise awarded moral damages to the victim in a rape case without need of independent proof other than its commission. It is assumed that the offended party has suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award of such damages.[27] As for the acts of lasciviousness committed by appellant against the victim herein, the Court awards P30,000 following its ruling in People v. Velasquez.[28] | |||||